CTC Review: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3

[Turbo Bob]

I love the look of the latest one, and even managed to convince the missus it's a sensible family car!  But I still think it's too much money for not enough performance.

If you want handling, get an old used Elise from the States.

The four seat layout is definintely a winner though, and I love the suicide doors.  If I was going for the old crowd of RX-7 vs supra vs 300ZX, I'd go for a Supra. Although the RX-7 is far better looking...

[rrocket]

Yea..the RX7 is a tidy package....

[ghost]

Because I drove a lot of RX8s when I had the 6, and through the four years of the lease hoped that Mazda would pull out a suitable replacement for the RX8 so I could have it as my next car. They didnt and I chose a different route. Hence my disappointment.

The baller's natural car choice is not even in the same league with the rx-8 for driving nirvana. You might wanna check out the 335i (big brother) owner who drove the rx-8. 
The 8 is not great on paper. It doesn't do one thing outstanding (except braking and lateral transitions). This car is about the sum of its parts. That is why time and time again, when compared to its natural competition, it seems weak on those charts and bar graphs. However as an overall package, journalists and experienced drivers just love it and come back to it. It is that unquantifiable feel. Maybe it's the hand-built smooth rotary engine in the manner of reaching stratospheric rpm with ease and yet feel natural when most piston engines would've committed Hari-Kiri. Or maybe it's the Aisin transmission that connects to the carbon-fibre driveshaft that delivers rifle-bolt action at each shift. Perhaps it is the thought Mazda put into it when designing the chassis and its double wishbone design around the Renesis. It is after all not a parts-bin special cobbered together from various existing model. You see, any numbnut car company can make a car to handle like a champ by stuffing stiff suspension, ABC soup of gizmos and fit it with sticky tires. But would really fail as a daily driver once the smooth track tarmac becomes an undulating frost damanged roads. It's rare to find cars that can do handle well and yet doubles up as a comfortable work a-day car. 
I had the good graces of test driving many cars (not as many as sir wing though) including a most recent nutball C63 AMG, at the end of the day, I am always happy to return to this unique car. It just fits like a glove. In addition, the geographical landscape of where I live allows me to enjoy what this car is all about - country side switchbacks with varying degrees of elevations.

[ghost]

I love the look of the latest one, and even managed to convince the missus it's a sensible family car!  But I still think it's too much money for not enough performance.

If you want handling, get an old used Elise from the States.

The four seat layout is definintely a winner though, and I love the suicide doors.  If I was going for the old crowd of RX-7 vs supra vs 300ZX, I'd go for a Supra. Although the RX-7 is far better looking...

I'd take the Supra's turbo engine for its reliability in an RX-7's drop dead sexiness.

[rrocket]

^^Quite right.  That's one thing about my Supra.  Despite the mods and mileage on it (130,000 MILES) , it's just tough as nails.  Power is immense...fuel consumption not too bad at all.  It's just a great engine...


Like I said..I really like the RX8....I just wish it had more TQ.  I agree with everything you say about it otherwise...

[Jameel]

None of your links are working for me.....


Sorry...I don't thunk it's a bad car....just not enough torque for me.  I also love the S2000....but it suffers the same thing...I'm a torque whore....(grew up driving V8s)

I'll have to drive one to see how "bad" the lack of torque is.

For me it was the deciding factor in NOT getting an S2000 and ultimately not wanting to consider the RX-8, to me a sports car needs to be a 2 seater, good power, good handling, looks good. 

I love the look of the latest one, and even managed to convince the missus it's a sensible family car!  But I still think it's too much money for not enough performance.

If you want handling, get an old used Elise from the States.

The four seat layout is definintely a winner though, and I love the suicide doors.  If I was going for the old crowd of RX-7 vs supra vs 300ZX, I'd go for a Supra. Although the RX-7 is far better looking...

You can't import Elise/ExigeS from the U.S. Trust me, I've looked into it.  Even with the new bumper rules, still no importation is allowed.

Yes the RX-7 was the best looking / handling car compared to the Supra, 300ZX and Stealth. Too bad it's rotary engine kept blowing up. I almost purchased a JDM RX-7 about 3 months ago, then started to read about engines going around 50K and decided against it.

The RX-8 looks should have been an evolution of the RX-7, not a total redo.  

A sports car should be impractical, it should have stiff suspension, it should have limited storage space, it should have no cup-holders.   When you decide you want a sports car, those are the things you have to sacrifice / live with.

[vdk]

would you buy it again wing?

[Giant Dwarf]

would you buy it again wing?

He chose to dump it after only a few weeks -- If he didn't want it then, why would he want it now when it's more out of date?

[safristi]

....and BUY another low Torque monster...........

[wing]

It's very low on power compared to what I am use to now there are so many cars I would rather have these days, although the discounted pricing of these is tempting -- I'd get a 350z first.

[Railton]

It's very low on power compared to what I am use to now there are so many cars I would rather have these days, although the discounted pricing of these is tempting -- I'd get a 350z first.

Yeah, but can you fit a baby seat in the back of the 350Z?
The car is in a class by itself, nothing else fits into the same mold.
For those that think it's low on torque, just bolt on a SC like James did with his S2K. With the great discounts you can obtain on this car currently adding a SC to the mix is a no brainer.
The Mazda RX-8, even five year old little girls get it.
Railton
On location, Seoul, South Korea.

[Zombie]

It's very low on power compared to what I am use to now there are so many cars I would rather have these days, although the discounted pricing of these is tempting -- I'd get a 350z first.

You mean compare to a supercharged S2000 and a Titan truck or a Nissan GT-S.

How was the power of the RX-8 compared to the S2000 before it got forced induction. On paper there isn't much difference? and they are both high reeving engines.

                                  Rx-8                                       S2000
Horsepower   232 hp @ 8,500 RPM       237 hp @ 7,800 RPM
Torque              159 lb.ft. @ 5,500 RPM       162 lb.ft. @ 6,800 RPM   

[David Kirby]

I love almost every aspect of the RX 8, but I do not want to contend with the idiosyncrasies of the rotary engine, especially in the Upstate NY weather. If Mazda were to offer the conventional MX-5 engine as an option, even though it may compromise the handling somewhat, I would not hesitate to buy one. Does anyone agree?

[wing]

The RX-8 feels a lot less torquey than a stock S2000, must be the weight difference (200lbs) and gearing, gearing makes a HUGE difference.

[kymics]

If Mazda were to offer the conventional MX-5 engine as an option, even though it may compromise the handling somewhat, I would not hesitate to buy one. Does anyone agree?

Unfortunately everything positive that's been said about this cars nimble handling ability would be gone at that point.  I believe an MX-5 is a 2.0L inline-4, the RX-8 is a 1.3L engine but apart from its smaller displacement it is even lighter due to the rotary engine design (no pistons, camshafts, multiple valves, large manifold, etc).  Plunk a heavy 4-cylinder into the bonnet and you have a front biased sports car that will plow under heavy cornering like all the rest of them.

[Turbo Bob]

If Mazda were to offer the conventional MX-5 engine as an option, even though it may compromise the handling somewhat, I would not hesitate to buy one. Does anyone agree?

Unfortunately everything positive that's been said about this cars nimble handling ability would be gone at that point.  I believe an MX-5 is a 2.0L inline-4, the RX-8 is a 1.3L engine but apart from its smaller displacement it is even lighter due to the rotary engine design (no pistons, camshafts, multiple valves, large manifold, etc).  Plunk a heavy 4-cylinder into the bonnet and you have a front biased sports car that will plow under heavy cornering like all the rest of them.

But for a different reason, the MX-5 engine is hardly heavy compared to others, but the best reason for the RX-8 IS the engine.  At high revs is sings like a jet engine!

[Turbo Bob]

If you want handling, get an old used Elise from the States.

You can't import Elise/ExigeS from the U.S. Trust me, I've looked into it.  Even with the new bumper rules, still no importation is allowed.

Even though they sell them in Canada?  I thought if they were certified for US/Canadian markets it was OK?

[Jameel]

Anybody know anything about the reliability of the RX-8? I'm trying to convince my friend to buy one.

If you want handling, get an old used Elise from the States.

You can't import Elise/ExigeS from the U.S. Trust me, I've looked into it.  Even with the new bumper rules, still no importation is allowed.

Even though they sell them in Canada?  I thought if they were certified for US/Canadian markets it was OK?

You would think so, but Lotus won't allow them on the admissible list.

[Giant Dwarf]

If Mazda were to offer the conventional MX-5 engine as an option, even though it may compromise the handling somewhat, I would not hesitate to buy one. Does anyone agree?

Unfortunately everything positive that's been said about this cars nimble handling ability would be gone at that point.  I believe an MX-5 is a 2.0L inline-4, the RX-8 is a 1.3L engine but apart from its smaller displacement it is even lighter due to the rotary engine design (no pistons, camshafts, multiple valves, large manifold, etc).  Plunk a heavy 4-cylinder into the bonnet and you have a front biased sports car that will plow under heavy cornering like all the rest of them.

But isn't it a twin-rotor 1.3, essentially making it the displacement of a 2.6L ?

[Arthur Dent]

I don't mean to dis Mazda. But isn't this design getting a bit long in the tooth. what is with sports cars. They design an exiting car for the first gen and never seamed to be able to top it. It is why I'm bored of Porsches.  Mazda seam slow to update there cars sometimes. Mazda really lost its momentum with wankel rotary engine. Almost all of Mazda cars had these engines at one point. I loved the MK1 Mazda Cosmo. The MK2 was sales flop here in NA. I'm going off topic now. 

Even their pickup had a Wankel at a point !

They actually made a bus with a rotary engine too. Of course Lada copied the Mazda rotary design and had a couple four rotor tanks kicking around for a while.

Yes the Rx-8 has a realistic displacement of 2.6L - it all depends on how you measure it.

I will have a Rx-8 but likely when they get way down in price - not beater stage but close. Lovely cars and the supposed lack of power doesn't bother me - its still swift.